1 



Claims for the Use and Destruction of Private Property during llie 

Late War. ' 



SPEECH 



HON. JOHN RITCHIE, 

OF M:^R YL^IsTD, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 1 3, 1872. 



The House having met for debate as in Committee 
of the Whole on the state of the Union — 

xMr. RITCHIE said: 

Mr. Speaker : I propose on this occasion 
to invite the attention of the House to the 
bill that I introduced early in the session, 
and which is now pending in the Com- 
mit lee on Appropriations, '' lor the ascertain- 
ment and examination of all claims for com- 
pensation for the use. damage to, and destruc- 
tion of private property by and for the benefit 
of the United States Army during the late war 
arising in those States that remained in the 
Union." This measure is one in which the 
counties of Allegany, Washington, Frederick, 
Carroll, and Montgomery of my State are 
especially interested. The bill is as follows : 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent- 
atives of the United Slates of America in Conoress 
axsembled. That the President of the United States 
shall be, and he is hereby, authorized to nominate, 
and, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
ate, appoint a board of commissioners, to be desig- 
nated as Commissioners of Chiims, to consist of 
three eoiamissioners, who shall be commissioned for 
two years, and whose duty it shall be to receive, 
examine, and cons.der the justice and validity of 
such claims as accrued in those States that were not 
proclaimed as in insurrection to the United States, 
as shall be brought before them by citizens who re- 
sided therein, for stores or supplies taken or fur- 
nished, or lor property used, damngcd, or destroyed 
for the use of the Army of the United States during 
the late war for the preservation of the Union, in- 
cluding the use, loss, damage, or destruction of 
Vessels or boats while employed in or taken for the 
benefit of the military service of the United States. 
And the said commissioners, in considering said 
claims shall be satisfied, from the testimony of wit- 
nesses under oath, or from other sufiicient evidence 
which shall accompany each claim, taken under 
such rules and regulations as the commissioners 
may adopt, of the quantity, quality, and value of 
the property alleged to have been taken, furnished,^ 
used, damaged, or destroyed, and the time, place, 
and material circumstances of the taking, furnish- 
ing, using, damaging, or destroying of the same. 
And upon satisfactory evidence of the justice and 
voiiidity of any claim, the commissioners shall re- 
port their opinion in writing in each case, and shall 



certify the nature, amount, and value of the prop- 
erty taken, furnished, used, damaged, or destroyed, 
as aforesaid. And each claim which shall be con- 
sidered, and rejected as unjust and invalid, shall 
likewise be reported, with the reasons therefor ; and 
no claimant shall withdraw anymaterial evidence 
submitted in support of any claim. 

Sec. 2. That said commissioners shall each take 
the oath of ofiice provided by law to betaken by all 
officers of the United States, and shall proceed with- 
out delay to discharge their duties under this act. 
ThePresident of the United States shall designate 
in his appointment one of said commissioners to be 
president of the board, and shall be authorized to 
fill any vacancy which may occur by reason ot death 
or resignation in said board; and each commis- 
sioner shall have authority to administer oaths and 
affirmations, and to take the depositions of wit- 
nesses in all matters pertaining to their duties. 
Tbc said commissioners shall meet and organize 
said board, and hold their sessions at Washington. 
Two members of the board shall constitute a quo- 
rum for the transaction of business, and the agree- 
ment of two shall decide all questions in contro- 
versy. The said commissioners shall have authority 
to make and publish rules for their procedure, not 
inconsistent with this act. and shall publish notice 
of their sessions. They shall keep a journal of 
their proceedings, to besigned by the president of 
the board, and a register of all claims broughtbefore 
the board, showing the date of presentation, num- 
ber, name, and residence of claiinaut, subject-mat- 
ter and amount of claim, and the amount, if any, 
allowed, which records shall be open to the inspec- 
tion of the President and Attorney General of the 
United States, or of such officer as the President 
may designate. 

Sec. 3. That said commissioners shall make are- 
port of their proceedings, and of each claim consid- 
ered by them at the commencement of each session 
of Congress, to the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, who shall lay the same before Congress) 
for consideration; and all claims within this act 
and not presented to said board shall be barred, 
and shall not be entertained by any department of 
the Government without further authority of Con- 
gress. 

Sec. 4. That the commissioners of claims sh.all be 
paid qu.arterly under this act at the rate of $5,000 
per annum each, and they shall have authority to 
appoint one clerk and one short-hand reporter, to 
be paid quarterly at the rate of $2,500 per annum 
each, and one messenger, to be paid at the r»te of 
$1,200 per annum, who shall perform the services 
required of them respectively; and said board shall 
be further allowed the necessary actual expenses of 
office-rent, furniture, fuel, stationery, and printing. 



M^T 



to be certified by the president of the board, and to 
be audited on vouchers and paid as other judicial 
expenses nre. 

Sec. 5. That a sufficient appropriation to carry 
this act into effect is tiereby made out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

It will be i-einembered that I made an ia- 
efFeCtual attempt to attach it to the naval 
appropriation bill some time since; and when 
the annual Army appropriation bill was on its 
passage a few days ago I proposed to incor- 
porate it as an amendment to that iti order to 
avoid the delay of a report in regular turn from 
the committee having it in charge; but 1 re- 
gret to say that notwiihstajiding my appeal 
to the contrary, the parliamentary point was 
made, and necessarily sustained, that it was not 
germane legislation. It is proper to say, how- 
ever, that the gentleman raising the objection, 
[Mr. Dickey,] while doing so, disclaimed any 
hostility to the measure as an independent 
one ; and I trust, therefore, when it is regu- 
Lirly readied, to find him, and also the gentle- 
man from Ohio, [Mr. Garfieui,] who excluded 
it on the former occasion, with a sufficient num- 
ber of others, giving it their support. 

I do not permit myself to suppose that the 
ra;ijority, which is responsible tor the legisla- 
tion of this House, will permit a bill so just 
and meiiiorious in its object and so cautious 
and moderate in its provisions, to fail of pas- 
sage. The effect of this bill would be to place 
those claimants for supplies taken and prop- 
erly damaged, who reside in the States that 
C'lntinued in the Union, on an equal footing 
with loynl claimants for similar relief residing 
in tiie States that seceded. 

As the law now stands, the latter class have 
superior facilities ibr the preferment and con- 
sideration of their claims, and a wider range 
in their subject-matter; an inequality that 
could not have been designed and should not 
be suifered to continue. Surely — while not 
meaningany reflection — citizens residing north 
of the Potomac are imtitled, in any aspect, to 
equal advantages with those on the other side 
in seeking redress at the hands of the Govern- 
raeut. 

This bill is modeled after that which was 
in the interest of southern claimants inserted 
as an amendment into the Army appropriation 
bill of last year, and it was to secure the weight 
and equitable suggestion of the precedent and 
extend the parallel that I endeavored to intro- 
duce it as an amendment at the same point in 
the same bill for this year. 

As in that amendment, this bill provides for 
the appointment of three commissioners, who 
are to investigate all claims of the nature de- 
scribed that may be submitted, and to rejiort 
the same, with their judgment thereon and 
the reasons thereof, to Congress for its final 
disposition. 

lu view of the reluctance hitherto mani- 



fested to entertain claims based on loss or 
destruction of property, 1 have thought a bill 
providing for their preliminary investigation 
the most eligible one, and most likely to 
receive favorable action. It obviates the dan- 
ger of setting precedents in legislating on par- 
ticular cases that might prove embarrassing, 
and of committing Congress in principle to 
appropriations the extent of which it has now 
no reliable means of ascertaining. At the 
same time its adoption would not preclude 
Congress from taking action in special cases 
if inclined to do so. 

It is admitted that many of the numerous 
appeals for relief and compensation are merit- 
orious, and that in common justice the Gov- 
ernment should extend them prompt and favor- 
able consideration ; yet it is evident that 
Congress cannot devote the time necessary 
to a careful investigation of these claims in 
detail. 'Still, at the same time, the amount 
involved in the aggregate might prove so large 
that Congress may be unwilling to transfef all 
control of them to the ministerial departments. 
The Committee of Claims is oppressed with 
a large numljer of these applications, which 
they are somewhat perplexed how to treat 
until Congress shall have indicated some set- 
tled policy ill regard to them. 

In those various aspects I have presented 
my bill framed as it is. If Congress is in a 
mood that will admit of more speedy means 
for the adjustment of these demands, I shall 
be only the more pleased to have my method 
superseded. If this bill shall but serve to 
in.tiate favorable action of any kind, it will 
have mainly answered its purpose. If more 
can be now effected than 1 have supposed, I 
shall be gratified that I have underrated the 
disposition to afford relief Should my effort 
prove the occasion of accomi)lishing something 
in the desired direction, although in a modified 
or different shape, and through the agency of 
some one else, even should it be much less 
than what 1 have moderately proposed, I shall 
be glad to welcome it as affording an earnest 
that adequate justice is eventually attainable. 

But while I am not exacting as to the 
method, or even measure of present redress, 
I am importunate that a beginning should be 
made in the matter. And if the majority in 
this body, which has control of its legislation, 
shall continue to disregard the well-founded 
appeals which come up from those whose sub- 
stance was consumed in supplying and sus- 
taining your triumphant armies, I cannot but 
hold up such a failure to a much-wronged 
community as cruel ingratitude and injustice. 
But I shall at least acquit myself of my re- 
Iponsibility, and I propose to vex the ear of 
this House till I touch its heart, if, in the lan- 
guage of a once popular but now somewhat 
disparaged individual, it takes not only " all 
the summer," but the ensuing winter besides. 



•8 



As I have stated, sufferers by reason of 
'- supplies taken and losses inflicted in the ad- 
hering States have not the same opportunities 
with southern clainiauts for pressing their 
demands. 

The Court of Claims, by the act of July 4, 
18G4, was deprived of jurisdiction in all cases 
of damage arising from the war; and the same 
act comprises the only legislation thus far pro- 
vided for sufferers in the "loyal" States. The 
relief, however, furnished by that act and the 
regulations based upon it is entirely inadequate. 

Under that statute, and the construction 
given it, the only claims that can be enter- 
tained are those of loyal citizens for articles 
that were taken by or supplied to the Army on 
the authority of a com[>etent officer, and come 
within the technical discription of '' quarter- 
master's stores," or "subsistence." Claims 
for damages for property injured or destroyed, 
or from thefts or depredation's committed by 
troops, or so much of a charge for stores or 
supplies as is an element of damages, are, by 
the regulations, excepted from consideration. 
Moreover, proof of the furnishing such arti- 
cles as are provided for is restricted to "the 
receipts ol' the otHcers taking the same, or 
other official evidence, and in the absence 
thereof there is required the testimony of some 
officer, soldier, or person employed by the 
Government personally cognizant of the al- 
leged appropriation, detailing in full the cir- 
cumstances attendant thereon, and setting 
forth of his own knowledge the details of the 
seizure, the quantities and values, and the use 
to which this property was applied, and the 
regiment, company, detachment, or other mili- 
tary body to the use of which the stores were 
appropriated." Numerous claims have been 
rejected because of the failure to furnish evi- 
dence of this minute and onerous strictness, 
and its exaction operates a practical denial 
of justice. From the circumstances and na- 
ture of the occasion under which much was 
taken for and supplied to the Army, this 
proof is in many cases unattainable. 

Under the southern claims commission the 
. evidence to establish a claim is such as would 
be admitted in a suit in a court of law, or be 
reasonably competent between man and man, 
and is not conlined to official records or the 
testimony of those attached to the Army or 
Government. The testimony of credible private 
citizens is received ; and common experience 
and common justice sanction such evidence 
as properly admissible, particularly where 
official proof is made unusually difficult from 
circumstances caused by the party making and 
benefited by the appropriation, and wlm had 
the power to take without the consent of the 
owner, and frequently so exercised it. Can it 
be that the Government, afier having exercised 
a power of seizure which is denied the private 
citizen, will continue to deny common and 



reasonable facilities to the sufferer to establish 
his claim for compensation ? It is not in this 
sense, I trust, that it is boasted we have " a 
strong" Government. 

In the nature of the case the emergencies 
of the Army often forbade the delay of a 
formal requisition, while they equally necessi- 
tated an immediate supply of its wants. And 
frequently when supplies hfid been formally 
taken, the sudden movements and numerous 
casualties of a campaign prevented the execu- 
tion of proper vouchers, or making full offi- 
cial returns. TJ^ citizen, ignorant of the 
subdivisions of t.?R~force, was often unable to 
trace up the officer responsible for the taking of 
his property, and who could give the necessary 
voucher, and access to the camps was always 
difficult, at times imjjossible, atid frequently 
attended with much personal hazard. Where 
proper receipts were not secured the effort to 
supply secondary evidence often proves futile 
because of the fatalities of the war, and the dis- 
persion to their unknown homes at\d changing 
residence of those in the Army wlio were per- 
sonally cognizant of the taking of the stores. 
The practical difficulties besetting a sufferer, 
under the strictness of proof required, must 
be apparent with but little reflection. 

The needs, for instance, of au army of a 
hundred thousand men in active movement, 
for food, fuel, forage, shelter, and transporta- 
tion, brooked no delay. After a f )rced march, 
and in the presence of an active enemy — 
assailing perhaps the supply trains — bivouack- 
ing on its arms for a day. or a night, or a 
week, as the case might be, there was little 
opportunity for the "red tape" routine that 
might be practicable in "the piping times of 
peace," when morning reports, dress-parades, 
and furbishing buttonschiefly consume the time 
and relieve the monotony of garrison duty. 

The three memorable campaigns, with hur- 
ried marchps, which swept over western Mary- 
land like siroccos, almost in the same track, 
and were marked by Antietam, Monocacy, 
the mf^uace of the national capital itself, and 
Gettysburg, necessarily involved an immense 
use amtdestruction of private property. 

When Lee and McClellan or Lee and Meade 
were confronting each other, and a Stnan and 
a Mosby were charging the flank or inter- 
cepting the wagons, was the cavalry with its 
jaded horses to sit motionless in their saddles 
till fresh ones could be regularly bonght or 
impressed, and proper receipts given? Were 
the exhausted and famishing inf^xntry to lie 
shivering in the gloom on the cold earth till 
cord-wood, as known to the regulations, could 
be procured from the distant wood-lot, and 
vouchers in due form made out? Were the 
starving wagon teams to be hitched passively 
at the way-side till the owners of adj:)ining 
pasture -lields or convenient hay-stacks could be 
hunted up and directed to let down ihe bars? 



If any inexperienced civilian or martinet 
can complacently respond in the affirmative, 
not so would reply the officers and men who 
endured the rigors, wants, and dangers of 
active service, and whom you sent to the field. 
No; the pressing necessities of the Army re- 
quired to be at once supplied, even if the plow 
in the field or the farm- team on the way to 
mill were bereft of horses ; though fences 
furnished the only ready material for light and 
fire, or ripening grain fields were the only handy 
pasturage. 

But as your Army impersyiYely needed these 
things, and appropriated tnfls, you are bound 
to see to it that the damage from these exac- 
tions is not borne exclusively by those individ- 
uals who chanced to live in the pathway of 
your troops or close to their camping grounds, 
and whom you should reimburse from the com- 
mon Treasury of that Government which these 
troops were called out to sustain. 

The camping of such 4in Army as that led 
by McClellan or Meade on a farm for even a 
day or two sufficed to destroy it. Many a fair 
homestead, blooming with beauty, luxuriant 
with the coming harvest, and promising a 
plenteous return to the toiling owner, was trans- 
formed in a night almost into a desert. The 
instances are not few in which the destruction 
has reduced the proprietors and tenants of 
small farms to the verge of poverty ; and these 
losses have fallen with peculiar hardship on 
widows and orphans, who required the more 
careful husbanding of their small resources to 
" make both ends meet." Especially frequent 
are such cases of hardship in Montgomery 
county, which lies within the shadow of the 
Dome that covers us, and which should symbol- 
ize the moral rectitude, as well as power, size, 
and aspirations of this great llepublic. While 
the dusky antipodes ot Japan can open the 
hand of your bounty in mammoth subsidies, 
and the outstretched arms of Ethiopia encircle 
you in welcome embrace, let your brethren at 
the door at least have justice. 

While the hand of war pressed heavily on all 
western Maryland, the county of Montgomery 
particulary suffered. In ISGOsheownei within 
her borders five thousand four hundred and 
twenty-one slaves, worth $2,500,000, a prop- 
erty in which her people had invested under 
the solemn recognition and sanction of the 
Constitution, in which instrument New Eng- 
land had secured, as one of the conditions of 
its ado()tion, against southern remonstrance, 
the extension of the slave trade till 1808. 

These $2,500,000 of property, more than 
a fourth of her entire wealth, you forcibly 
consumed in your holocaust of freedom. For 
this she is urginj^ no cl:iim : but as you lay her 
under tribute, stripped as she has been, equally 
with other portions of the land, to support the 
Government and pay the war debt, see to it 
that she suifers, as far as you can elfuct it, 



only her fair proportion of the actual desola- 
tions and ravages of the war. Equitably con- 
sidered, every exaction from a citizen for 
national purposes beyond his distributive 
share of the common burden is but the con- 
tribution of a trustee or agent, which the Gov- 
ernment, in good conscience, is bound to reim- 
burse him. 

But further, not only is the relief afforded 
by the act of July 4, 1864, too narrow, first, in 
limiting the compensation to such articles 
taken by or furnished to the Army as were 
appropriated by the authority of an officer; 
and secondly, in restricting the proof of such 
appropriation to written official evidence, or 
the testimony of those attached to the Army 
or in the employ of the Government, but it ia 
grossly inadequate in that it excludes all claims 
for supplies that do not come within the defi- 
nition, technically, of "quartermaster's stores" 
or "subsistence," or are founded on "depre- 
dations" or the damage, as such, to property. 

Now, it might fairly be contended that upon 
the advent of an army which practically super- 
sedes or suspends the ability of the ordinary 
civil authorities to maintain law and order and 
punish offenders, and renders the citizen pow- 
erless to protect his property — exposing him 
indeed to personal danger from straggling 
soldiery if he attempts it — the Government, 
which is responsible for the presence of that 
army, is responsible for all the consequences 
of its acts which the private citizen by no 
reasonable precautions or efforts of his own 
can prevent. 

But, conceding that the Government should 
not be held liable for losses from theft and 
unauthorized depredations as commonly un- 
derstood, or for destruction of property wan- 
tonly committed, there still remains a class of 
depredations which, while perpetrated with- 
out specific orders, and not literally within the 
denomination of "quartermaster's stores" or 
"subsistence," were yet committed as much 
to meet the necessary wants and exigencies of 
the Army, and were as expressly so applied, 
as any supplies technically recognized as such. 

Examples of this species of depredation are 
grain-fields into which cavalrymen and team- 
sters turned their famishing horses, and fenc- 
ing consumed as fuel for camp-fires. Grow- 
ing wheat is not recognized as among "quar- 
termaster's stores" or "subsistence;" nor 
are fences that have bfeen burned allowed for 
except at the marketable rate of cord-wood. 
How inadequate such a compensation, to com- 
mute say, twenty panels of post and rail fenc- 
ing, worth $1 50 {)er panel, as a cord of wood 
at the price of three dollars; and yet this is 
the rate of compensation which now mocks 
the owner who seeks relief for the destruction 
of his inclosures and the laying open of his 
farm as a common ! 

But not even this meager pittance is avail- 



able if the fences were torn down to admit of 
free passage for troops, or were used in making 
breastworks. And there is further, no relief 
whatever where farms have been seamed over 
and rendered unfit for husbandry, or even 
occupation, by entrenchments and ditches, or 
were made the sites of fortifications, as was 
particularly the case in the vicinity of Wash- 
ington ; where too, acres upon acres of valua- 
ble groves and bodies of timber were felled as 
defensive obstructions, or to clear the view 
and prevent surprise. 

Another class of meritorious claimants in 
Maryland are those interested in and doing 
business in connection with the Baltimore and 
Ohio railroad, and the Chesapeake and Ohio 
canal. These works run beside the Potomac 
river, along which the war raged with especial 
fury. Every canal boat was liable to seizure 
for the transportation of troops and supplies, 
and their availability for such uses peculiarly 
exposed them to loss and destruction. 

Still another class of sufferers not sufficiently 
provided for are the owners of churches, sem- 
inaries, school-houses, and other buildings that 
were occupied as quarters and hospitals for 
troops. True, such occupation has been in 
instances paid for so far as such use could be 
treated as a mere renting. But such a rule 
of payment is grossly inadequate ; for it ex- 
cludes from the estimate all injury in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, while the buildings 
were often so dismantled and ruined as to ren- 
der them unfit, except at heavy outlay, for 
their original purpose. It also debars from 
consideration the incidental injury to the busi- 
ness connected with the edifice, sometimes its 
chief element of value, as is the case where 
institutions of learning were appropriated, and 
the scholars were necessarily dispersed to their 
homes or other places of tuition. 

President Grant, while in command of the 
army, advocated the equity of compensation 
to owners of property occupied or destroyed 
for " public use," as appears from his in- 
dorsement of the claim of James and Emma 
S. Cameron for relief for the appropriation of 
their residence by United States troops, re- 
cently qouted, and with approval, by the 
Committee on Claims of the Senate. 

There is one particular in which the bill I 
have introduced differs from the law estab- 
lishing the southern claims commission, and 
from the act of July 4, 18C4. In the first of 
these two it is directed that the commissioners 
in considering the claims must be satisfied, not 
only of their justice and validity, but also of 
"the loyalty"ofthe claimant. In theact of 1864 
there is a provision similar in effect, and the 
Quartermaster Getieral and the Commissary 
General of Subsistence, in their respective 
departments, are made tlie tribunals to in- 
vestigate and determine this question of 
loyally. In the bill I have tiubmiaed proof is 



required only of "the justice and validity of the 
claim." 

This may be regarded as a material omis- 
sion by the majority in this House; and if its 
disposition is such that no additional facili- 
ties will be accorded to claimants unless the 
qualification referred to is added, I would sug- 
gest that the bill is within the power of this 
House for such amendments as it may insist 
upon. I can only say for myself that in the 
light of my sworn obligation to support the 
Constitution as I understand that fundamental 
charter alike of our powers and of the rights 
of the citizen, I could not recognize in any 
legislation of my offering a discrimination so 
false in principle, so pernicious in example, 
and so unjust in operation. 

The genius and safeguard of republican 
institutions is freedom of opinion and account- 
ability only for actual deeds to rightfully es- 
tablished law. In tl)at view, and providing 
for both as inevitable and desirable in a coun- 
try intended to be free, the fullest liberty of 
thought and conviction, the framers of our 
organic law took care to define in what treason 
should consist: 

"Treason against the United States shall consist 
only in levying war against them, or in adhering to 
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No 
person shall be convicted of treason unless on the 
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or 
on confession in ppeu court." — United States Consti- 
tution, article 3 section 3. 

Disloyalty is not taken cognizance of until 
it shall have assumed form and expression in 
a tangible or overt act. And whether such 
overt act has been committed is to be determ- 
ined only by that tribunal provided by the 
Constitution for that purpose. It declares: 

"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of im- 
peachment, shall be by jury." — Constitution, article 
3, section 2. 

And further : 

"No person shall beheld to answer for a capital 
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a present- 
ment or indictment of a grand jury." * * « 
* "Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law; nor shall private prop- 
erty be taken for public use, without just compen- 
sation." — Amendment^ to Constitution, article 5. 

■'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall 
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an 
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the 
crime shall have been committed, which district 
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and 
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu- 
sation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining 
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance 
of counsel for his defense." — Amendment to Con- 
stitution, article 6. 

"The Congress shall have power to declare the 
punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason 
shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except 
during the life of the person attainted." — Constitu- 
tion, article 3, section 3. 

"No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be 
passed." — Constitution, article 1, section 9. 

Now, it is an established principle of con- 
struction, that what cannot be directly done 
cannot be done indirectly. 



6 



Since, therefore, the Constitution has de- 
fined the constituents Bnd offense of treason, 
and has prescribed the mode by which the guilt 
of its perpetrator shall be established, it is, to 
my apprehension, a violation of that instru- 
ment to impute that offense when any of the 
ingredients which it specifies are lacking ; or 
to try and in effect convict on practically 
what is an accusation of treason, in a mode 
other than that which it has ordained. 

Tested by the above-recited requirements 
of the Constitution, how unwarranted and 
illegal is a private accusation of disloyalty, 
unaccompanied by specific charges, to usurp 
the functions of a jury and invest them in the 
Quartermaster General for its determination, 
and then, as is the practice in his department, 
investigate the charge in the absence of the 
accused, in a secret, ex parte proceeding, 
without opportunity to the party charged to 
confront the witnesses, and even, indeed, as 
is generally the case, without being able to 
ascertain who they are. Could there be a 
more flagrant and dangerous violation of all 
the safeguards of private rights? 

But, further. Assun.ing a charge of dis- 
loyalty, and so preferred, to be a proper one, 
the quartermaster an appropriate tribunal to 
try it, a secret investigation by concealed wit- 
nesses legitimate, and the guilt of the accused 
established, it by no means follows that you 
have the right to deprive him of his property, 
and to an extent dependent on and having no 
limits but the necessities of the Army as the 
penalty of such guilt. However plausible the 
''plea of necessity" for confining his person 
in the exigencies of war and within the range 
of martial authority, you have no right to work 
a forfeiture of his estate by withholding pay- 
ment for the property you have deprived liimof. 
The constitutional injunction still remains: 

"Nor shall i)rivate property be taken for public 
use without just compensation." 

Among nil the penalties you have prescribed 
in your statute law against, the traitor, the 
murderer, the pirate, and the robber, commen 
cing with the act of 1790, chapter nine, enacted 
in pursuance of the constitutional power to 
Congress to define the puTiishment of treason 
and other crimes, this prohibition has been re- 
spected. By that very act, in section twenty- 
four, still ill full force, and but a reaffirmance 
of the constitutional injunction, it is declared 
that— 

"No conviction or judgment for any capital or 
other offenses shall work corruption of blood or any 
forfeiture of estate." 

Chief Justice Story, that champion of Fed- 
eral power, on page 180, vol. 2, of his Commen- 
tary on the Constitution, in eulogizing the wis- 
dom and expediency of the clauses prohibiting 
bills of attainder and forfeiiure of esiaie, re- 
marks, (and the quotation lias great pertinence:) 

"Ibo Lislury uf other couutries abundantly 



proves that one of the strong incentives to prose- 
cute offenses as treason, h;is been the chance of 
sharing in the plunder of the victims. Rapacity 
has been thus stimulated to exert itself in the ser- 
vice of the most corrupt tyranny; and tyranny has 
been thus furnishrd with new opportunity of in- 
dulging its malignity and revenge ; of gratifying its 
i envy of the rich and good; and of increasing its 
means to reward favorites and secure retainers for 
the worst deeds." 

And on page 239 he continues: 

"The injustice and iniquity of such acts in gen- 
eral constitute an irresistible argument asainst the 
existence of the power. In a free Government it 
would be intolerable, and in the hands of a reigning 
faction it might be, and probably would be, abused 
to the ruin and death of the most virtuous citizens. 
Bills of this sort have been most usually passed in 
England in times of rebellion, or gross subserviency 
to the Crown, or of violent political exnitemonts; 
periods in which all nations are most liable (as well 
the free as enslaved) to forget their duties and to 
trample upon the rights and liberties of others." 

By the laws of civilized warfare, private 
property even in an enemy's country is re- 
spected. In his triumphant march to the city 
of Mexico, the famous Scott added to iiis 
laurels by his scrupulous observance of the 
rule. And more recently the king of Pru,<isia, 
with the rich prize of France at his feet, ob- 
served the obligation to compensate the pri- 
vate citizen for such of his properly as his 
army required. 

Surely what the laws of war would secure 
to a private enemy should be accorded to our 
own citizens, especially when there is super- 
added to the spirit of international equity the 
express command of our own organic law. 

1 might add that, because there is required 
in behalf of claimants in the seceded States 
under the southern claims commission proof 
of tlieir loyally, it furnishes no ju.st precedent 
for such a requirement when dealing with the 
citizens of States that remained in the Union. 
The confederacy sustained the character of a 
belligerent, and this fact devolved on all its citi- 
zens all the political consequences of such a 
relation. In the eye of international law its citi- 
zens were all constructively, at least, alien ene- 
mies. It is an act of grace, therefore, for the 
Government to permit them to remove this 
prima facie character ; and any terms on which 
that benefit can be attained is in the nature of 
privilege. Not so with ciiizens of the Union. 
The presumption that they were all true to the 
Government as properly applies to them as 
the presumption to the contrary applies to the 
ciiizens of the South. It is a presumption 
that unites with the other valuable presumj)- 
tion which hedges the liberty of the citizen 
that he is supposed innocent till proven by a 
lawfully constituted tribunal to be otherwise. 
The act of 1864 violates these fundamenial 
Siifeguards and assumes every man to be a 
traitor till he proves the negative that he is 
innocent. Such an act is at once humiliating 
to the pride and silliversive of tlie rights of the 
American citizen. 



But T wish it understood that in thus assail- 
ing this requirement of loyalty and its manner 
of pionf, 1 do not concede that tlie claimants 
for whom I feci interested are in fact obnox- 
ious to the charge of being disloyal. I have 
been dealingwilh the principles involved only. 
Doubtless some ofthese claimants disapproved 
the course of the Government in its war with 
the Sonth, but so did Lord Chatham that of 
England in its war of the Revolution with us ; 
so did Corwin, of Ohio, of ours in our war 
with iVIexico ; so, also, New England opposed 
our war of 1S12. and I am not aware that the 
right and duty of an American citizen to ap- 
prove or disapprove the acts of his own Gov- 
ernment, which is but his representative and 
agent, do not apply to questions of war as well 
as of peace. I know of no class of men whose 
especial prerogative it is to dictate a policy of 
any kind for the (Government unquestioned by 
their fellows. 

But whatever the sentiments ofthese claim- 
ants, they were held to and performed all 
their political duties and obligations as citi- 
zens of the Union. They were subjected to 
military service, and their properly has borne 
its full share of taxation, while suffering more 
than most others the ravages of war. The 
fact is, many if not most of these claimants, 
so far from being disloyal, were in fact in full 
accord with the Government in its war for the 
preservation of the Union. They are. never- 
theless, hampered with obstacles to obtaining 
adequate redress, which my bill is designed to 
remove. But some of these, entitled to the 
meager relief now attainable, I believe have 
been actually thwarted by insinuations against 
their fidelity to the Union from superservice- 
able and vindictive miscreants, who have so 
safe and inviting a field for the wreaking of 
private malice in the secret and irresponsible 
method of receiving proof of disloyalty in the 
Departments. 

It will be observed that I have made no 
provision in my bill for compensation for 
losses inflicted by confederate troops. These 
claims are doubtless entitled to consideration, 
and I have not included them only because I 
feared to jeopardize favorable action upon 
claims whose right to liquidation cannot be fairly 
disputed by uniting with them those in regard 
to which some might be disposed to cavil. I 
shall be much gratified, however, if the gentle- 
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. B. F. Meyers] 



shall succeed in incorporating into my bill 
an amendment looking to their adjustment 
also. 

What he a few days ago so ably said in 
behalf of the recognition of losses inflicted 
on the people of Pennsylvania by confede- 
rate troops in the burning of Chambersburg 
and on other occasions, applies with at least 
equal force to the losses inflicted by the same 
troops in Maryland. The city of Frederick 
was compelled to pay a ransom of $200,000. 
Hagerstown, Middletown, and other places 
along the route of invasion were proportion- 
ately levied oUt 

We were thus treated, in the exercise of 
their character as belligerents, as part of the 
common enemy. Since, by reason of this 
community of interest, we were made to bear 
more than our proportion of losses, that same 
community of interest raises the obligation on 
the rest of the country to equalize the bur- 
den. It was as a component part of the 
Union we were made to suS'er, and common 
cause should be made with us for our resti- 
tution by other States of the Union, which, 
only by reason of being more remote, expe- 
rienced less of the shock of war, and, happily, 
were more exempt from its ravages. More- 
over, as ably argued by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the duty of protection by the 
Government is correlative to that of allegiance 
from the people. 

By the Constitution it is stipulated that in 
consideration of the States having yielded the 
right of maintaining arnsies for their own de- 
fense "the United States shall protect each 
of them from invasion." When this obliga- 
tion failed of performance, the equitable claim 
arose to the approximate equivalent instead 
of indemnity for the losses consequent on such 
failure or default. And as the Government is 
abundantly able to afford this reparation, in- 
demnity, or relief, as you may be pleased to 
term it, it would seem but reasonable and juat 
to grant it. 

I now commit the whole subject for the 
present to the reflection of the House, with 
the decided hope that it will, before the ses- 
sion closes, take favorable action. 

The fair form of peace has returned to brood 
over the land, the bright and beautiful spirit 
of amnesty is hastening to her side ; let the 
more homely but not less esteemed features 
of fair dealing complete the group. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



T 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



liilliilliillilll III III III! I 
013 701 727 1 



peRnulTf6« 
pH83 



